By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:38 - Apr 10 by blueytheblue
Say the club has 100 shares at present for simplification. Trust would have 21, rest of shareholders 1 share for each percentage owned. I hate using complicated numbers for examples.
To get 70% of the shares without any share purchase, the only real option is that the board decide to issue new shares which would be purchased by the new investors. This then dilutes other peoples shareholdings. Trust would still have 21 shares but out of a total of say 350 rather than 100 total.
That then conflicts with the whole "Trust retain 21%" claim because without the Trust buying more shares in that scenario, their percentage would drop. In that scenario, the club would receive the money for the new shares purchased.
In reality, what seems to be happening is these "investors" want to buy existing shares from your shareholders. No new shares are being issued. That's why Trust retain 21% even if everyone else sells up.
So the question is that when Wathan speaks of 100m investment, is that really 100m going into the club from the investors or is that the amount of money the investors will spend on buying the shares AND putting money into infrastructure? Buying existing shares gives money to those shareholders not the club.
It's the old investment vs Share Sale argument. To be blunt, details of any actual investment are thin on the ground. Not to say there isn't any, but it'd be separate from the purchase of any shares.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:38 - Apr 10 by blueytheblue
Say the club has 100 shares at present for simplification. Trust would have 21, rest of shareholders 1 share for each percentage owned. I hate using complicated numbers for examples.
To get 70% of the shares without any share purchase, the only real option is that the board decide to issue new shares which would be purchased by the new investors. This then dilutes other peoples shareholdings. Trust would still have 21 shares but out of a total of say 350 rather than 100 total.
That then conflicts with the whole "Trust retain 21%" claim because without the Trust buying more shares in that scenario, their percentage would drop. In that scenario, the club would receive the money for the new shares purchased.
In reality, what seems to be happening is these "investors" want to buy existing shares from your shareholders. No new shares are being issued. That's why Trust retain 21% even if everyone else sells up.
So the question is that when Wathan speaks of 100m investment, is that really 100m going into the club from the investors or is that the amount of money the investors will spend on buying the shares AND putting money into infrastructure? Buying existing shares gives money to those shareholders not the club.
I ws going to say that even the thickest shelvey types must get this point by now, but, no, they don't.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 22:09 - Apr 10 by 1973scott
Adding football to the Americans investment stable offers the chance to work with existing partners, such as advertisers and sponsors, in new markets.
No doubt they will bring strategic insight and international presence to SCFC
A new pattern of ownership has emerged, with private equity investors taking a renewed interest in Premiership clubs. We won't be the last!
A corner has been turned,” says Dan Jones, head of sport at Deloitte. “After two decades of being very successful at generating revenue, football clubs are now finally able to retain some of that revenue. It’s quite hard now not to make money in the Premier League.” Source: FT
Private Equity make their returns out of leverage. The club's assets are going to be mortgaged - so that new investors can fund the deal.
The club will also take on debt to finance stadium expansion via interest bearing loans - secured on the club's assets.
Woe betide the club if we get relegated to the Championship.
1 in 4 chance of that happening each and every season (if assume Man City, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton will never be - leaving 13 other teams of which 3 go down each season).
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 02:58 - Apr 11 with 1239 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 20:00 - Apr 10 by morningstar
The way I look at that it's even worse! It's nothing short of a new share issue in the long run, meaning the Trusts 21% holding has gone in the flick of a finger! Surely it can't be anything else?
Sorry, your analysis is not accurate. From the information we have, it's not remotely a "new share issue." It's some of the shareholders wanting to sell all or some of their shares -- not the club selling newly-issued ones.
If it were newly-issued shares, I'd have heard the roar from the Trust even over here!
Once again, from what we have been told, it appears that none of the proposed sale price will go to the club, all to the shareholders.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:14 - Apr 10 by monmouth
I guess they've stopped seeing the club as a club for Swansea and now see it as 'their' asset. therefore it makes no sense to expand without a consequent increase in the value of the asset (ie their future selling price) which only happens if they own the asset. So I think there's a wall to bash your head against on that one. Just think Gollum...it's mine, all mine...my precious...
Pessimistic view? I don't think so. Barry Island speaks elsewhere of disappointment with the current pantomime. To me, it all feels quite sad, like the whole thing has just been a lip service charade all along and now we see that all the fine words on the way up were just that. Words. And now with a tame journo roped in to spout those words like a demented half brained parrot. Disappointment hardly gets close. They, and their apologists seem to forget that it wasn't just their initial investment that helped build what we have now but a hell of a lot of goodwill and support from people that expected and will get no financial reward, plus of course those so conveniently airbrushed out of the vanity project.
I'd like all of them to act honourably now so that these words choke me. Not holding my breath.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:23 - Apr 10 by SwansNZ
I’m assuming the new “investors” (or any/most potential ones), would only be interested a taking complete control? Else, why couldn’t the existing shareholders who wanted to sell, just sell half their shares for a few million. The current board could retain control, and also make a sh1tload of money.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:38 - Apr 10 by blueytheblue
Say the club has 100 shares at present for simplification. Trust would have 21, rest of shareholders 1 share for each percentage owned. I hate using complicated numbers for examples.
To get 70% of the shares without any share purchase, the only real option is that the board decide to issue new shares which would be purchased by the new investors. This then dilutes other peoples shareholdings. Trust would still have 21 shares but out of a total of say 350 rather than 100 total.
That then conflicts with the whole "Trust retain 21%" claim because without the Trust buying more shares in that scenario, their percentage would drop. In that scenario, the club would receive the money for the new shares purchased.
In reality, what seems to be happening is these "investors" want to buy existing shares from your shareholders. No new shares are being issued. That's why Trust retain 21% even if everyone else sells up.
So the question is that when Wathan speaks of 100m investment, is that really 100m going into the club from the investors or is that the amount of money the investors will spend on buying the shares AND putting money into infrastructure? Buying existing shares gives money to those shareholders not the club.
I don't know where anyone got "To get 70% of the shares without any share purchase."
I think it's clear from what we've heard from participants that some of the shareholders are selling out -- all or some of their shares.
I hope you're not relying on that Wales Online propaganda! Uninformed propaganda at that.
So....it appears that Planet Swans is bucking the trend of every other opinion poll that I can find with the vast majority of EP and WM folk being positive for example (and before anyone comes all high and mighty those people have as much right to their opinion as you or I)
You may ask, so what? ...and that's really the point isn't it, it really doesn't matter what any of US think, probably because we do not have the FACTS (I've been thinking about Benitez and The Newcastle game...), but even if we did it's not our decision...
From where I am sat it's inevitable that we will be taken over, if not this time, then next. All we can hope for is that we get the best deal on the table and we secure our future. I think it's highly unlikely the current Board will shaft us as we can have no doubts they love the club, but we should be under no illusions that one way or another we will all have to deal with Change whether we like it or not
-2
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 08:06 - Apr 11 with 1161 views
I think the main issue is it would appear very few people know the exact deal on offer. What is apparent is that a number of people on the board want to ensure they get best the best value for their shares following their investment to save the club many years ago. I haven't got a problem with that, they took a risk and they are going to reap a huge profit. What has become apparent is that to satisfy the apparent demand for tickets and to allow the new fan to become permenant expansion is required and the current board do not want to risk their current investment any further.
At some stage a new board was going to have to be formed on the basis that sooner or later some will want to get their profits out or die or whatever. The current situation was never going to go on forever as some fans want or expect, that is just not an option.
All we apparently know is that current shareholders will sell to the prospective investors who claim they want to work with the fans and the trust and expand the club into a larger and presumably wealthier company. I am sure we are all happy with that, but the devil is in the detail which nobody appears to know.
I asked at the last trust meeting the offer the trust made to the board for their shares to get the missing few percent to get to 25% and it was basically the money the trust had in the bank. Why would a shareholder sell shares for less than they could? That isn't going to happen so the trust will always be in a minority holding position.
We are still a very exciting product for any potential investors out there and looking on the positive side it could be a massive investment to take us to the next level and then sell on at an even greater profit or reap the PL income for decades, we just don't know at the moment but like it or not things are going to change no matter if it is this lot or another investor, the board want their money back and sell they will eventually and there is little we can do to stop that like it or not.
Life is an adventure or nothing at all.
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 08:25 - Apr 11 with 1146 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 08:40 - Apr 11 by Big_Phil
In fairness that's got far more to do with managerial capability and player recruitment than any increase in investment / club ownership
It's important not to link the two things in my opinion
It's saying money does not equal success.
If any shareholder wants to cash in his winnings, that's up to them, but just don't bullshit about "investment", and don't keep the trust in the dark either.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 08:45 - Apr 11 by SwansNZ
It's saying money does not equal success.
If any shareholder wants to cash in his winnings, that's up to them, but just don't bullshit about "investment", and don't keep the trust in the dark either.
Correct - money does not equal success, I get that obvious fact, but thanks for pointing it out...
Does money equal stadium expansion (which 95% of us have been screaming out for)? - possibly...and that's what a legal binding commitment must give us In my opinion as part of the deal
It's very simple - legally binding clauses about infrastructure investment...and it is about investment, if not then it's all about cashing in, I agree with you on that...
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:09 - Apr 11 with 1082 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:43 - Apr 10 by Uxbridge
It's the old investment vs Share Sale argument. To be blunt, details of any actual investment are thin on the ground. Not to say there isn't any, but it'd be separate from the purchase of any shares.
The £100m is the overall valuation of the club and not the amount of money that will be handed to the shareholders - simply a figure that has been stated to take the 70% and effectively pro-rata that to a 100% figure.
The £30m that someone quoted is an assumption made in the press because stadium expansion was mentioned and £30m has been quoted as a figure for what this would cost.
As it stands at the moment it is as clear as to how this money appears as someone quoting me as being ready to expand the stadium myself
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:18 - Apr 11 with 1063 views
£100m for a debt free, profitable, established club in the most lucrative football television market in the world seems like a low price.
Owning the stadium can't add that much more value.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:20 - Apr 11 with 1056 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 08:25 - Apr 11 by monmouth
Aye, villa Newcastle and Sunderland are taking their 'investment' to ' the next level' alright.
Can't understand why anyone falls for this bullshit to be honest.
So what is the way forward then because it is obvious from the stance of the board the status quo is not an option, some or all want out. We are going to sell ownership shares at some point. We are never going to attract the sugar daddy and in any case FFP seems to be closing that particular option.
Life is an adventure or nothing at all.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:33 - Apr 11 with 1028 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:18 - Apr 11 by Dr_Winston
£100m for a debt free, profitable, established club in the most lucrative football television market in the world seems like a low price.
Owning the stadium can't add that much more value.
Isn't it better for us fans that it's valued as cheaply as possible? The more they pay for it, the harder it will be for them to generate a profit once they own it.
It doesn't make much difference to us whether they pay HJ, LD, MM etc £1m per share or £100 per share... Unless I'm missing something?
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:46 - Apr 11 with 1006 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:33 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Isn't it better for us fans that it's valued as cheaply as possible? The more they pay for it, the harder it will be for them to generate a profit once they own it.
It doesn't make much difference to us whether they pay HJ, LD, MM etc £1m per share or £100 per share... Unless I'm missing something?
They're going to screw it for as much money as they can no matter how much they paid for it.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:33 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Isn't it better for us fans that it's valued as cheaply as possible? The more they pay for it, the harder it will be for them to generate a profit once they own it.
It doesn't make much difference to us whether they pay HJ, LD, MM etc £1m per share or £100 per share... Unless I'm missing something?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just a little surprised at how low it is.
Potentially affecting the share price is one of the reasons mooted for the apparent lack of interest in helping the Trust get to 25%.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:50 - Apr 11 with 990 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:46 - Apr 11 by Dr_Winston
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just a little surprised at how low it is.
Potentially affecting the share price is one of the reasons mooted for the apparent lack of interest in helping the Trust get to 25%.
They can make a fortune by bringing in their own commercial sales team. Also, once they buy the stadium they can recoup £10m on a new naming rights deal. The Liberty deal... It ran out last year.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 9:50]
It's just the internet, init.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:03 - Apr 11 with 959 views
I generally feel that this is a good thing. The unknown/uncertainty and human nature's resistance to change makes it difficult to accept, but the hard facts point towards this being a necessary step.
The books over the last few years highlight an increasing challenge in trying to compete at this level. We're totally dependent on TV money and player sales to stay afloat. We don't have any other significant income.
We can float a few more years with this TV boost until costs catch up again, however we don't have the financial capital (or the ability to raise it internally/cheaply) to make the necessary changes to make us more competitive at this level longer term.
This deal can only represent a intention to buy and invest in our stadium as well as other commercial activities to help address that income gap. Staying still just doesn't make any sense
The idea of asset stripping is laughable as no way does our balance sheet generate anything near the price per share that these guys are supposedly paying. The return for the investment here comes from being in the premier league for at least another 6 years (next 2 TV deal cycles) and the buyers will be extremely invested in ensuring that happens (arguably more so than our existing board)
Asset stripping may happen if we end up failing in our premier league survival in the next few years (and don't bounce back within a 3 year window. This scenario is what the Trust is for.
I'm fairly positive - or at least open-minded about this share sale.
EDIT - on the Trust share %. This is a tough one. Heart says we need this, however the head says it would prove a massive stumbling block for future investment (i.e. Stadium) = @ 26%, the Trust would be expected to match any external investment in the club. We potentially wouldn't be able to to this and the 26% amount means that the cash injection would likely either not happen, or (worse) translate into Loans. The flip side is that @ 23%, the only thing that will stop the new owners from diluting it is purely from a PR angle (assuming that matters to them). From they buyer perspective - why would they invest extra funds into the club and directly add value to the Trust's shares without any pro-rata'd contribution from the Trust?
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:03 - Apr 11 by EasternJack
I think this has been mentioned here already.
I generally feel that this is a good thing. The unknown/uncertainty and human nature's resistance to change makes it difficult to accept, but the hard facts point towards this being a necessary step.
The books over the last few years highlight an increasing challenge in trying to compete at this level. We're totally dependent on TV money and player sales to stay afloat. We don't have any other significant income.
We can float a few more years with this TV boost until costs catch up again, however we don't have the financial capital (or the ability to raise it internally/cheaply) to make the necessary changes to make us more competitive at this level longer term.
This deal can only represent a intention to buy and invest in our stadium as well as other commercial activities to help address that income gap. Staying still just doesn't make any sense
The idea of asset stripping is laughable as no way does our balance sheet generate anything near the price per share that these guys are supposedly paying. The return for the investment here comes from being in the premier league for at least another 6 years (next 2 TV deal cycles) and the buyers will be extremely invested in ensuring that happens (arguably more so than our existing board)
Asset stripping may happen if we end up failing in our premier league survival in the next few years (and don't bounce back within a 3 year window. This scenario is what the Trust is for.
I'm fairly positive - or at least open-minded about this share sale.
EDIT - on the Trust share %. This is a tough one. Heart says we need this, however the head says it would prove a massive stumbling block for future investment (i.e. Stadium) = @ 26%, the Trust would be expected to match any external investment in the club. We potentially wouldn't be able to to this and the 26% amount means that the cash injection would likely either not happen, or (worse) translate into Loans. The flip side is that @ 23%, the only thing that will stop the new owners from diluting it is purely from a PR angle (assuming that matters to them). From they buyer perspective - why would they invest extra funds into the club and directly add value to the Trust's shares without any pro-rata'd contribution from the Trust?
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 10:13]
Open minded is good. I think we all should be. Some will be put off by the prospect of anyone coming in, which I think is the wrong approach.
However I can't agree that anyone coming in will, without exception, always have the best interests of the club at heart. They'll have their own interests and, as we've seen with the likes of Villa all too graphically, these don't always tie in with the fans interests. Ironically Lerner's probably been merely a case of mismanagement rather than anything dodgy.
So yeah, open minded is good. Closed eyes less so.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 09:46 - Apr 11 by dailew
They're going to screw it for as much money as they can no matter how much they paid for it.
It's the nature of these people.
I don't think they'll blatantly asset strip the club as we don't have a hell of a lot of assets to strip. Especially given an outlay of £70m or whatever they'll end up paying.
I suppose in the long term, a bigger stadium, naming rights, increased fan base, growth of TV monies may give them decent profit for a few years and then they sell the club for a big profit (like the "flip" mentioned), 10 years down the line.
Without that 25% there is nothing the trust can do if they come in and dilute the shares but anyone could do that at any time. I wonder if there is any way the current deal will prevent that from happening?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
